Second Court of Appeals

Week of February 17, 2015 

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of February 17, 2015

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Lake v. State, No. 02-13-00521-CR (Feb. 19, 2015) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Livingston, C.J., concurs without opinion).

Held: The denial of properly requested closing argument violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the right to be heard under Article I, Section 10 of the Texas constitution. Harm is presumed.

Chidyausiku v. State, Nos. 02-14-00077-CR, 02-14-00078-CR (Feb. 19, 2015) (Dauphinot, J.; Gabriel, J., concurs with opinion, joined by Livingston, C.J.).

Held: The trial court reversibly erred by denying Appellant’s motions to suppress evidence resulting from a warrantless, involuntary blood draw.

Concurrence: Although the arresting police officer and the trial court correctly concluded that Appellant’s blood could be drawn without a warrant and without Appellant’s consent based on a then-valid statute, a subsequent decision of the court of criminal appeals mandates that an involuntary blood draw cannot occur without a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement. Here, neither a warrant nor an exception existed. Based on Appellant’s counsel’s statements to the trial court regarding Appellant’s intention to plead guilty after the trial court denied Appellant’s motion to suppress, it cannot be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court’s error in failing to suppress the blood-test results did not contribute to Appellant’s decision to plead guilty.